One of the scariest developments during 2011 to 2018 is the decline of our rushing defense and, in this year particularly, the dramatic decline in our rushing offense. The decline in the defensive stats may be due to the bend-don't-break philosophy, but the trend is unmistakable and very worrying. Here are the offensive and defensive rushing stats by season, with the first six games of 2018 included here. The first number is Stanford's rushing average per game and average yards per carry; the second number is our defense against the run, with average yards per game and average yards per carry by our opponents. Very worrying developments. I will look up points per game as a comparison; but these numbers are scary. In press conferences, Shaw often dismisses statistics. Still, for Stanford's "identity", these numbers are vital. For the first time in the Shaw era, our opponents are out-rushing us and have even achieved superior yards per carry. Our worst differential so far was 2014, when we had our worst record (8-5).

Everyone in a competitive environment must adapt, including David Shaw. He has had a lot of success doing it the same way, but the stats show teams have caught up to him. Nick Saban used to run a very Stanford-like offense. Not so much any more. At the same time, Les Miles was fired at LSU because he didn't adapt and evolve.

The run is easiest to stop, and the rules are designed to make it easier to pass than ever before. Stanford doesn't need to pass 50 times a game. Not to sound like a broken record, but Stanford does need to become more balanced and much less predictable between the two, and develop a more diverse passing game. I personally feel Shaw needs to hire an experienced OC and let him run the offense.

I don't know about Anderson. It may be time for a change there too. He's no Vic Fangio or Derek Mason.

(10-07-2018, 09:16 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Everyone in a competitive environment must adapt, including David Shaw. He has had a lot of success doing it the same way, but the stats show teams have caught up to him. Nick Saban used to run a very Stanford-like offense. Not so much any more. At the same time, Les Miles was fired at LSU because he didn't adapt and evolve.

The run is easiest to stop, and the rules are designed to make it easier to pass than ever before. Stanford doesn't need to pass 50 times a game. Not to sound like a broken record, but Stanford does need to become more balanced and much less predictable between the two, and develop a more diverse passing game. I personally feel Shaw needs to hire an experienced OC and let him run the offense.

I don't know about Anderson. It may be time for a change there too. He's no Vic Fangio or Derek Mason.

People have been calling for Shaw to hire an experienced OC for years now. I'm afraid we are wasting our collective breaths on this one. If he were going to do it he would have done it by now.

(10-07-2018, 09:16 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Everyone in a competitive environment must adapt, including David Shaw. He has had a lot of success doing it the same way, but the stats show teams have caught up to him. Nick Saban used to run a very Stanford-like offense. Not so much any more. At the same time, Les Miles was fired at LSU because he didn't adapt and evolve.

The run is easiest to stop, and the rules are designed to make it easier to pass than ever before. Stanford doesn't need to pass 50 times a game. Not to sound like a broken record, but Stanford does need to become more balanced and much less predictable between the two, and develop a more diverse passing game. I personally feel Shaw needs to hire an experienced OC and let him run the offense.

I don't know about Anderson. It may be time for a change there too. He's no Vic Fangio or Derek Mason.

People have been calling for Shaw to hire an experienced OC for years now. I'm afraid we are wasting our collective breaths on this one. If he were going to do it he would have done it by now.

Does David Shaw have a boss who oversees his performance and can make persuasive arguments about how he is doing his job? Only guys like Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, and maybe Shaw's pal Swinney get to do whatever they want, because they both naturally push the envelope and will make themselves uncomfortable to get better or stay on top. They will always re-invent or push themselves to get better, any way they can.

Of course, I don't know if Stanford wants to win as a school/program more than it wants a specific person they like coaching. For example, I don't know if Muir sets performance standards that if not met, might result in pushes for changes. Or if Shaw is hired to do whatever he wants with a lengthy amount of rope.

Lose 4 games at USC and you might be on the hot seat. Don't know where Stanford is on the expectation continuum and how that manifests in terms of each coach oversight.

(10-07-2018, 09:16 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Everyone in a competitive environment must adapt, including David Shaw. He has had a lot of success doing it the same way, but the stats show teams have caught up to him. Nick Saban used to run a very Stanford-like offense. Not so much any more. At the same time, Les Miles was fired at LSU because he didn't adapt and evolve.

The run is easiest to stop, and the rules are designed to make it easier to pass than ever before. Stanford doesn't need to pass 50 times a game. Not to sound like a broken record, but Stanford does need to become more balanced and much less predictable between the two, and develop a more diverse passing game. I personally feel Shaw needs to hire an experienced OC and let him run the offense.

I don't know about Anderson. It may be time for a change there too. He's no Vic Fangio or Derek Mason.

People have been calling for Shaw to hire an experienced OC for years now. I'm afraid we are wasting our collective breaths on this one. If he were going to do it he would have done it by now.

Agree. I do not see an experienced OC coming anytime soon. Bloomgren's departure was the big chance; but Shaw gave the job to his home-grown product. The biggest issue for me is the decreasing competitiveness of both lines. This was where Harbaugh built the current Stanford identity; and this was what Shaw continued and nurtured. But line play on both sides of the ball has atrophied. You cannot play Stanford football without being competitive in the trenches.

(10-07-2018, 09:16 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Everyone in a competitive environment must adapt, including David Shaw.

I know the end product is not where we all want it right now, but I actually think Coach Shaw has made a marked adaptation in the past couple of years on offense. With the exception of the multiple TE's, we are running an offense more similar to a Big 12 spread team than our previous iterations in the past. Part may be due to personnel on OL, but regardless, we play with a lot more tempo now than we ever used to, JJAW is a Big-12 type WR in his home-run play ability, combined with his size that is a matchup nightmare for most teams, and we frequently attack the seam deep. Even our bend-but-don't-break defense is modeled more after a Big 12 defense than say, Utah's defense last night or ND's defensive philosophy.

A perfect example of this is, again despite the end result, how we went toe-to-toe offensively with a Big 12 offensive juggernaut in TCU, and the manner in which we put up 37 points. A Bryce home-run, and 3 TD's to JJ.

Now, after four years of running bend-but-don't-break on defense, one may have an argument about making modifications to that philosophy (giving up a yard more per rushing attempt, and 40-60 yards more per game), by adding in blitzes and stunts earlier. But we are clearly very vulnerable at at least one of the safety positions, and at nickle, and if the extra pressure doesn't get home, and you leave our DB one-on-one on an island, you will sometimes get what happened on the last Utah TD. Maybe it is worth taking that calculated risk, but any discussion of additional blitzing should be framed as such. It is a risk, but perhaps if we take more calculated risks, it will ultimately lead to a bigger pay-off.
Also, re the decline in rush blocking on OL, which is undoubtedly the source of our dramatic decline in rush yardage (even if Love is hurt, Speights showed last night he can be at least a solid runner), the question is whether this decline, which times with Coach Bloomgren's departure for Rice, is because of the personnel left for the new OL coach (basically the recruiting pipeline), or is more attributable to coaching. I think the answer is a combination of both; Bryce Love home runs bump up last year's YPC, because we had a fair number of runs last year (though not as many as this year) stuffed for no gain or a very short gain. On the other hand, the personnel is mostly the same as last year (with some rotations due to injuries on OL), and our OL coach is known for being a pass-blocking specialist, as opposed to a run-blocking specialist. I believe that is showing in the run stats.

(10-07-2018, 11:36 AM)needle Wrote: Utah, through four games (so not including last night), was ranked third nationally in rushing defense (83.8), giving up 2.62 yards per carry.

There's a real possibility Utah will end up with the best rushing defense of any Stanford opponent.

Now, we all know the rushing woes extend far beyond one game. But, assuming Love returns at full health, I do think the Stanford ground game will have better days ahead this season.

Before heaping too much praise on Utah, consider their schedule, including a WSU team that runs the ball less than pretty much any FBS team, and a UW that only rushed for 3 YPC against UCLA. They also played Northern Illinois and Weber State. Not like Stanford is difficult to stop on the ground either.

The run blocking remains terrible
So we pass for almost 400 yards and that had nothing to do with play calling but pure luck ???
3 turnovers but two caused by poor protection
Yes the 14 point swing on Costello

Quote:Before heaping too much praise on Utah, consider their schedule, including a WSU team that runs the ball less than pretty much any FBS team, and a UW that only rushed for 3 YPC against UCLA. They also played Northern Illinois and Weber State.

Here are the PPG stats for comparison. The trend is less clear, but the poor point margin in 2018 already stands out like a sore thumb. The first number is Stanford's PPG average for each year, while the second number is PPG for our opponents.

So our PPG so far this year (including a game against an FCS opponent) is the lowest in the Shaw era, while the PPG for our opponents is near an all-time high; and the gap (+3.7), accordingly, is the narrowest it has been in Shaw's eight years. If we remove the tremendous 2015 campaign with McCaffrey and Hogan, there is a clear saw-tooth motion downward. There shouldn't be any surprises here, but this data certainly corroborates the rushing data for offense and defense. Shaw's best team remains the 2011 squad with Andrew Luck, with 2015 a close second (yes, maybe at the end of the year, the Hogan-McCaffrey team might have been the best ever in the Shaw era. Harbaugh's 2010 squad is still the best ever for my money).

My belief going into this season was that if they didn't average at least 30 PPG, the OC should be replaced. Like everyone else, I have no explanation for the OL collapse. Perhaps unlike some others, I hold the coaching staff responsible, because this is virtually the same OL from 2017 that performed well and should have been even better in 2018 given the experience.

(10-07-2018, 01:07 PM)Austroturf Wrote: Here are the PPG stats for comparison. The trend is less clear, but the poor point margin in 2018 already stands out like a sore thumb. The first number is Stanford's PPG average for each year, while the second number is PPG for our opponents.

So our PPG so far this year (including a game against an FCS opponent) is the lowest in the Shaw era, while the PPG for our opponents is near an all-time high; and the gap (+3.7), accordingly, is the narrowest it has been in Shaw's eight years. If we remove the tremendous 2015 campaign with McCaffrey and Hogan, there is a clear saw-tooth motion downward. There shouldn't be any surprises here, but this data certainly corroborates the rushing data for offense and defense. Shaw's best team remains the 2011 squad with Andrew Luck, with 2015 a close second (yes, maybe at the end of the year, the Hogan-McCaffrey team might have been the best ever in the Shaw era. Harbaugh's 2010 squad is still the best ever for my money).

Respectfully, so what is your argument here? That the program would have been better off if Harbaugh had stayed after the 2010 season? That institutional rot has progressed? I will set aside the "clear saw-tooth motion downward" part for now, but three Pac-12 championships, four division titles, four NY6 bowls, 10 win seasons in all but 2014 and 2017 (with the floor being an 8-5 season with wins over UCLA and Cal) is an amazing run of success that literally no other program in the conference can match (Washington and Oregon may have made the CFP, so their highs may be slightly higher than ours, but they have also been bad or atrocious at various points in the last 8 years; in contrast, Stanford under Coach Shaw has been a high-floor, model of consistency program throughout).

Now, returning to the "clear saw-tooth motion downward" part, the stats alone that you present are an incomplete picture for three critical reasons:

1) Elaborating on each of these more thoroughly, with the exception of the upcoming game against Washington, the front half of our schedule is tougher than the back half of our schedule (that is not saying, however, that challenges don't remain on the docket). In particular, the defenses that we have faced in the first half of the season, with the exception of Washington, are markedly better in the first half of our schedule than the second half (as the strength of SDSU, USC and Utah, I believe, is in their defense, regardless of what their overall quality may be). You will have a point if the offensive and defensive struggles continue against the Cals, Oregon States, and UCLAs of the world, or even Arizona State, but we don't have that data yet, so it is pre-mature to argue that 2018 is our worst year for PPG or even Point Differential. Let's see where the final numbers end up before taking this argument too definitively.

2) The Pac-12 may not necessarily be a better conference nationally now than it was at the end of Coach Harbaugh's tenure/beginning of Coach Shaw's tenure, but the conference is definitely more competitive. During the end of the Harbaugh era/beginning of the Shaw era, the conference was dominated by two teams (Stanford and Oregon). USC was on probation, and coached by Lane Kiffin. Washington was coached by Sark and was a mediocre 7-6 outfit every year. Wazzu before Mike Leach was awful, as was Cal in the final years of the Tedford era. Colorado and Utah had just joined the Pac-12, and in the case of Utah, did not have the depth initially to compete in the conference. Colorado under Embree was possibly the worst Power 5 school in the country. ASU at the end of the Erickson era was a perennial underachiever, with the talent and resources available in Tempe.

Flash forward to the present, Colorado has since won a Pac-12 South title, and I would argue, are the favorites to win the division this year. Washington under Chris Petersen has been outstanding during the Gaskin-Browning era, Oregon appears to have found its footing again after the rough end to the Helfrich era. SC had Darnold and were a juggernaut in the conference last year. Utah has been able to build up Pac-12 level depth on its roster after the transition from the Mountain West.

It is possible we are not as good of an outfit as we were in the early 2010's, but it is important context to consider the overall strength of the conference. Even outside the conference, since we play Notre Dame every year, Notre Dame in the second half of the Brian Kelly era has been better than the beginning of his tenure or the end of the Charlie Weis era.

3) Recruiting rankings vary from site to site, but I think it is fair to say that while we have recruited fairly well, we have never been a top 10 recruiting powerhouse. We may have had a class here or there that was top 10 according to a couple of sites, but I would argue we are now at least a Top 15-25 recruiter. As such, perhaps 2016 and 2017 (and depending on how 2018 ends up), are a regression to the mean of our recruiting ranking (i.e. solid Top 15-25 side, but not a perennial NY6 team). For example, even the best recruiters/coaches cannot develop the Ben Garners of the world consistently out of 2-3 star talent. We are now getting more 3-4 star talent, but my point is perhaps the first half of the Shaw era was an overachievement relative to our recruiting rankings, and now we are just no longer overachieving on our ranking.

(10-07-2018, 01:57 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: My belief going into this season was that if they didn't average at least 30 PPG, the OC should be replaced. Like everyone else, I have no explanation for the OL collapse. Perhaps unlike some others, I hold the coaching staff responsible, because this is virtually the same OL from 2017 that performed well and should have been even better in 2018 given the experience.

Yes, I don't get the issues with the OL. Injuries? Partially. But ultimately, the coaching staff has to be held accountable.

There are obviously lots of things going on here, but I think the biggest is out of the coaches' control. There have been some serious injury issues along the offensive line. I don't believe that Walker Little is healthy. He was pretty dominant last year, but he's struggled this year. I can't believe that he simply regressed. Foster Sarell was probably expected either to start or contribute regularly this season, but he hasn't been available. A.T. Hall missed some games, and even though he's back, he clearly doesn't look to be fully recovered. Jesse Burkett started 20+ games in a row at center, and he missed the first couple games. And even though these guys show up on the depth chart and play each Saturday, I don't think they're close to a hundred percent. Devery Hamilton has also been hurt. Yes, I know this is football and that everyone suffers injury and few players along the line are ever at peak health, but I still don't think this can be ignored. During many of those glory years that have been mentioned, Shaw was able to start the same five guys in the same spots all season long. We knew at the time that that was lucky; recently we've been unlucky.

(10-07-2018, 02:29 PM)Austroturf Wrote: Yes, I don't get the issues with the OL. Injuries? Partially. But ultimately, the coaching staff has to be held accountable.

Hank 91 Wrote:There are obviously lots of things going on here, but I think the biggest is out of the coaches' control. There have been some serious injury issues along the offensive line.

Well, broadly speaking coaches are responsible for everything in a college football program. So, I wouldn't quite go for the "out of the coaches' control" theme. However, injuries are probably closer to being out of the coaches' control than just about anything else. While there are lots of issues at the moment, injuries have been looming as a dark cloud over this season from as far back as January.

The OL, however, has been having issues since 2015, so this year's injuries are not the full story.

d4cohn Wrote:

OutsiderFan Wrote:Everyone in a competitive environment must adapt, including David Shaw.

I know the end product is not where we all want it right now, but I actually think Coach Shaw has made a marked adaptation in the past couple of years on offense.
... we are running an offense more similar to a Big 12 spread team than [most anything else - my words]

I agree with d4cohn here. I find it incomprehensible that there is a major thread of belief on this board (and others) that Stanford's primary problem right now is a stubborn insistence by David Shaw to not change our offensive approach. Not only have their been changes to the offensive strategy all over the place, but this year is unlike anything Stanford has seen.

Personally, I think most of these changes are bad, and would argue that a lot of our troubles arise from trying to change for change's sake. I fear that long term this could prove disastrous as we lose our offensive personality all together - I mean what is our offense now and how do we recruit to it?
However, the OL, our run game, and pass game sophistication are all is so bad right now I don't see that the "all back-shoulder throws" offense is necessarily worse than any other options. So, maybe the best we can hope for is to struggle through to the end of this season and that the staff spends the off season deciding and establishing just what the Stanford offense is going to be.

It seems that 90% of fans have two explanations for a team's struggles: bad referees and bad play calls.

A massive contingent believes there can be magic and mystery in play calling that all but transforms an offense.

A massive contingent believes it is too predictable to run the ball on two thirds of your first downs,

A massive contingent believes that while we may have 100 running plays, we run only 3-5 of them.

My experience, while limited--two years as a play-calling starting safety, one year as a bad but savvy college DB--convinces me that none of the above is true. The essence of basketball is deception. The essence of football is force, speed, and execution.

I heartily agree with CT Card above. And I know, as Hank likely does to, that the OL injury issues have been more serious than ever reported, and that they have strongly effected some players' performances.

Shaw regularly emphasized that a major role for the quarterback is "to get us out of bad plays."

Our QB has three options at the line. (With few exceptions, either two runs and a pass or two passes and a run.) The QB has to read the defense and decide, to I keep or kill?

It appears we've had an unusual number of plays this year that seemed doomed from the beginning, running to a nine man box being the most obvious. And Costello also isn't reading blitzes and checking into an option with at least one quick route.

This is a definite issue. I've no idea why Costello isn't "getting us out of more bad plays. Great leader, good thrower, slow learner?
"

(10-07-2018, 02:27 PM)d4cohn Wrote: Respectfully, so what is your argument here? That the program would have been better off if Harbaugh had stayed after the 2010 season? That institutional rot has progressed?

My argument here is certainly not that we would have been better off if Harbaugh had stayed. I am simply comparing teams since Stanford football was resurrected from the dead back in the late noughts of this century. The PPG data is also only meant to complement the rushing data, which for me are far more important. Let's recap for a moment.

The Stanford football identity established by Harbaugh and further expanded and maintained by Shaw consists of the following crucial elements.
1) A consistent and strong run game that enables the team to string together long, sustained drives resulting in 3 or, even more desirable, 7 points.
2) This keeps the opposing offense off the field and maximizes TOP.
3) These long, sustained drives keep Stanford's defense OFF the field and keeps them fresh.
4) The defense, in turn, needs to get the ball back as soon as possible for the offense and get off the field, either by forcing the opposing offense to go 3-and-out or by getting a take-away. This is the philosophy of "trusting the defense to get the stop".
5) Repeat points 1-4, make it a 2-3 possession game, then kill the clock.

There have been some masterful examples of this kind of football in the past. Oregon in 2013; UCLA in 2014. Sometimes, when the opposing team also has strong line-play, this system breaks down (Utah 2013, MSU Rose Bowl 2014). But overall the success of the Stanford football identity has been undeniable. Gerhart, Taylor, Gaffney all fit this system; and our O-lines and D-lines were built to play this kind of football.

Beginning in 2014, we faced our first real issues with an underperforming O-line that did not really gel until very late in the season. The defense was still excellent and kept us in most games; but we did not have the running back or the O-line to be successful with the Stanford system. Hogan threw a lot more that year; but the losses piled up until we were sitting at 5-5 with a trip to Cal's Memorial Stadium awaiting and bowl-eligibility on the line. This was the turning point in the season and got us to our ultimate 8-5 record, including a pounding of the top ten UCLA Bruins in the Rose Bowl.

2015 was already a bit of a departure from Stanford's usual system. McCaffrey was such an all-around threat (kick-off returns, receiving, rushing) that the offense took on a somewhat different character. The methodical drives became less time-consuming and more explosive; Hogan aired it out more to Cajuste and Rector. The O-line was in excellent shape by the third game. But in this year, the first cracks in the defense became apparent, as opponents were suddenly rushing for 40% more yards per game. It was a decent defense that got better as the year progressed; but it was already giving up more rushing yards than even the early Harbaugh years and significantly more than the 2010-2014 years. This was also Lance Anderson's second year; and we were starting to see the bend-don't-break mode of defense, which partially explains the greater offensive production by our opponents. PPG by our opponents also went up, but our offensive fireworks overshadowed this.

Since this banner year, we have continued to see challenges on the O-line and D-line. We have been losing the TOP battle more often. Bryce Love is a phenomenal back, but has been more a home-run hitter than a bruising back good for methodical 5-yard pops. Our defense is spending far more time on the field with the bend-don't break defensive approach. In short, we are finding it increasingly difficult to execute Stanford football. In fact, we are very much seeing our opponents out-Stanford us, winning the TOP battle, getting ahead on the scoreboard and enjoying long, methodical drives while our offense is on the field for shorter periods of time.

The accomplishments of Stanford football under David Shaw are beyond reproach: winningest all-time coach; three Pac-12 titles; four NY6 bowls; high graduation rates; a scandal-free program; 5 10+ win seasons in seven years (and nearly got another one last year). So there is no quibbling with the results. But it is very apparent that we have seen a downward spiral in our ability to execute the style of football that Shaw is unequivocally committed to. Our ability to stuff opposing offenses and get our defense off the field has declined markedly; our offense, on the other hand, is getting stuffed more and more and is spending less time on the field. We get behind early and have to make a torrid comeback. The only exception to this pattern all season was the USC game, which was the closest I have seen us get to true "Stanford football" in 2018.

This raises a lot of questions. If we used to overachieve versus our recruiting rankings, why is this no longer the case? Some of this could be bad luck; some could be a natural regression to the mean; some could be a decline in player development and coaching; some could be due to the ability of other teams to figure out our schemes and counter them. The point is: the 2018 version of Cardinal football is currently unable to execute the style of football Shaw would like to execute. And this has been developing over multiple years. I do not believe we are lacking talent; but clearly the players either don't have the right profile for Stanford's style of football or they have not been properly coached to execute it. I personally believe there has been a drop-off in coaching; too much promoting from within; not enough new blood and fresh-thinking from outside. Pep Hamilton (OC), Derek Mason (DC), Randy Hart (DL) and Mike Bloomgren (OC/OL) were all significant losses. Duane Akina was a good catch from Texas; Ron Gould has a solid track record. Otherwise? Posing the question the other way around: which coach on the staff is in danger of being poached by another university?

So this leaves the program with some serious choices to make. To get back to Stanford's football ethos, Shaw needs to recruit differently, coach differently or do both. If not, then he needs to change that ethos and the identity of the team. To believe otherwise is to ignore the reality we are currently facing.

Finally, I do not agree that the second half of the season will be markedly easier than the first half. UW and WSU will severely test the mettle of this team. ASU in Tempe will probably prove to be tough (they took us apart four years ago in their stadium). Cal is probably at its best in the last six years, and we have to play them in Berkeley. OSU at home should be a W. UCLA played Washington to a one-score game. We may have the misfortune of catching Chip Kelly's new team when they start to hit their stride. I agree that the Pac-12 has become more competitive during the last four years (not necessarily better). Stanford and Oregon used to dominate and were perennially in the top ten (sometimes the top 5, as in the final regular season rankings of 2011). This is more a testament to how excellent Stanford and Oregon were during this phase than to weakness among the other Pac-12 teams. If we ever want to sniff the rare air of top ten rankings again, David Shaw will have to make some tough choices this year and in the next two years. When you are a run-first team and your rushing offense is ranked 124 out of 130 in the nation, I would say there is a fundamental issue. And that is the point I have been trying to raise in this thread.

One of the other problems -- and one of the themes of pretty much every postgame presser -- has been how the offense responds to "unscouted looks." This has always been issue. Because few teams run a pro-style offense, looking at film of opposing defenses doesn't yield as much as it would for other teams. Considering what they ask the quarterback to do, this could also explain what's perceived as Costello's slow development. I'd like to think that VR would help accelerate his learning curve, but maybe it hasn't.

About Our Community

Welcome to The CardBoard. We are THE community for Stanford sports fans and guests. We include alumni, former athletes, students, and just plain Cardinal crazies, as well as guest fans of Cardinal opponents.